Coffee shop altercation.

[MickeyRat]

Sorry Sailorman, you'll never convince me it's a good idea to vape in public over anyone's objections right or wrong. It's number 2 in my rules for public vaping for a reason. It's exactly the attitude that caused those laws that restrict smokers and it can do the same to us. The people that object are few and far between. I've never encountered one but, if/when I do, I won't do it over their objections even if I can and I wish you wouldn't either.

Once the majority public attitude is established one way or the other I'll change my stance but, not until then.

 

[sailorman]

Sorry Sailorman, you'll never convince me it's a good idea to vape in public over anyone's objections right or wrong. It's number 2 in my rules for public vaping for a reason. It's exactly the attitude that caused those laws that restrict smokers and it can do the same to us. The people that object are few and far between. I've never encountered one but, if/when I do, I won't do it over their objections even if I can and I wish you wouldn't either.

Once the majority public attitude is established one way or the other I'll change my stance but, not until then.

We'll agree to disagree on the larger point. When a place is already vape-friendly, I'm not willing to give it up at the whim of every crank and psycho that strolls in. I will however agree not to vape when a reasonable person asks me to because the vapor is reaching their personal space. I won't stop simply because they personally don't like it, especially when they are clear across the room.

On the bolded statement, that is factually incorrect. Smoking bans were never the result of smokers insisting on their "right" to smoke. They weren't even the result of non-smokers being offended and insisting on bans. They were the result of public health organizations and various anti-tobacco zealots campaigning on the basis of (flimsy) evidence that secondhand smoke was harmful to bystanders. There was definitely no popular uprising that led to smoking bans.

Like I have said before. In 1950 everyone smoked everywhere and it was accepted. If all those smokers had been vaping, there would never have been any such thing as a smoking ban and people would still be vaping everywhere. That is unless someone could gin up some junk science to "prove" secondhand vapor was a public health hazard.

 

[sailorman]

Rat, what would you do if you were in a park, outside, vaping, and some stranger walked 40 feet over to you and told you to stop? Would you stop?

If you were in a vape-friendly building and some random stranger walked 40 feet, or from another room and told you and told you to stop, would you stop?

What's the difference?

Some places have laws against vaping outside. If you didn't stop for that stanger in the park, do you think that might encourage bans on outdoor vaping? If not, why not?

 

[Maestro]

Most people are not as informed about vaping as the readers on this forum and have no desire to be. If there are problems arising from people vaping in an establishment, there WILL be a ban on it in order to avoid problems. That's the reality, like it or not. I'm all for campaigning against such bans which are wrong and unfair. Lowes has a policy against it and I understand the state of Utah has included vaping in their smoking bans. By all means, protest it in every way possible. But where it's currently not banned, likely the owner has not thought about it since it's not particularly prevalent yet. If it becomes a problem, for whatever reason, regardless of who's right or wrong, they will ban it. Hopefully public awareness will increase as our fellow vapers become more prolific, but until then a confrontation in a private establishment can only turn out badly. Of course, if you're in a public area and they won't listen to reason, tell them to pound salt.

 

[sailorman]

... If there are problems arising from people vaping in an establishment, there WILL be a ban on it in order to avoid problems...

If there are problems arising from people vaping absolutely anywhere besides their own homes, there WILL be a ban on it in order to avoid problems. If your theory was correct, it wouldn't be limited to private establishments. Fortunately, it's not correct.

There's no reason the same dynamics at work in your theory won't cause a ban in a public park or an entire town. Any random thug can start a conflict and the vaper either has to comply or else the police, the proprietor or someone somewhere will be bothered. Regardless of the location, there will be problems, because someone wants to cause a problem. So, why not on the street? All the anti-vapers can start a ruckus and vaping will be banned anywhere in public. So, to avoid that, we are supposed to enforce a de-facto floating ban against ourselves to take effect anywhere and as soon as someone asks or demands that we put our PVs away.

That's exactly what you guys are suggesting. We should voluntarily impose a de-facto floating ban anywhere someone voices an objection. If we don't, there could be a ban. There's absolutely no difference between someone who won't listen to reason in a private establishment and that same person in the local park. Only the person/persons who decide whether to formalize or advocate a ban are different. But in reality, if a person causes a problem, there is absolutely no logical reason to assume that it will be blamed on the victim because he was legally vaping with permission from an owner or from the city fathers.

That's where you guys' logic totally breaks down. Proprietors aren't stupid. The police aren't stupid. Both of them have problems with thugs from time to time. They don't start imposing rules against whatever behavior is used by the thug to justify his thuggery, and the public doesn't demand it. They don't prohibit carrying large sums of cash because dealing with robbers is a "problem" and the public doesn't demand that either. Owners don't throw hippies out of their coffee shops because some redneck might cause a problem and people don't like hippies any more than vapers. If an owner permits something on his premises, he will ban it if it becomes offensive or he gets complaints from NORMAL PEOPLE. Not because some bully starts a row about it.

 

[sailorman]

Most people are not as informed about vaping as the readers on this forum and have no desire to be. If there are problems arising from people vaping in an establishment, there WILL be a ban on it in order to avoid problems. That's the reality, like it or not. I'm all for campaigning against such bans which are wrong and unfair. Lowes has a policy against it and I understand the state of Utah has included vaping in their smoking bans. By all means, protest it in every way possible. But where it's currently not banned, likely the owner has not thought about it since it's not particularly prevalent yet. If it becomes a problem, for whatever reason, regardless of who's right or wrong, they will ban it. Hopefully public awareness will increase as our fellow vapers become more prolific, but until then a confrontation in a private establishment can only turn out badly. Of course, if you're in a public area and they won't listen to reason, tell them to pound salt.

This whole situation isn't about vaping at all. It's about the right of someone to demand someone else cease doing something that doesn't affect him. It's about the probablilty of an owner assigning blame to the person who was the subject of thuggery. There is a clear right and wrong. So, it IS about right and wrong. It isn't right to invade someone table and try to intimidate them. I don't care what that person was doing. If it's illegal, call the cops. If it's not ..... That's the way things work.

The dynamics you are proposing will cause a ban have never caused a ban in any other situation in history. No activity has ever been banned, either by private owners or public administrators, due to it inflaming bullies and thugs. None. Not ever. Yet you're convinced that this one exception will be the one exception in the history of civilization. Vaping is so unique that a violent reaction to it, on the part of a tiny number of people, will result in it being banned.

Utah and Lowe's have nothing whatever to do with anything. Neither of those bans were a result of public demand. Neither of them were based on the behavior of vapers. None of them were in response to pubic complaints or problems caused by vaping. They were both arbitrary decisions. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. That goes for laws as well as individuals. A cafe owner might ban vaping. But, if he does, it will be based neither on reason or the thuggish reactions of a few militant individuals.

 

[Maestro]

I disagree, but time will tell. Vapers are still pretty much under the radar, but the numbers are growing and the bans are growing with them. Let's watch and see what happens as it becomes more mainstream and number of confrontations increases. Things are going to get lively.

 

[tinajfreeman]

I disagree, but time will tell. Vapers are still pretty much under the radar, but the numbers are growing and the bans are growing with them. Let's watch and see what happens as it becomes more mainstream and number of confrontations increases. Things are going to get lively.

I agree, but if we don't vape in public we are simply imposing a vaping ban on ourselves. I am not saying be obnoxious about it, but why have a self-imposed ban? We aren't doing anything wrong or dangerous! If anything, by getting the word out we are helping people!

In the end, if we get banned, we're stuck with that. But banning OURSELVES accomplishes nothing. Why would we say, "Don't vape in public, or they may start banning vaping in public?"

There will be some debate on this, for sure, but I for one am not hiding something that has so much potential to save lives out there.

 

[ctourtelot]

I vape in public all the time. If I'm in a closed area, I keep the vapor to a minimum, but I don't hide what I'm doing.

Just the other night my bf and I went to a japanese steak house for dinner. We got seated with another couple (who turned out to be really awesome and we exchanged numbers) and a family with a small child. The table next to us was a bridal party of pretty wild girls lol.

My bf held up his pv before the meal and told everyone that if they see the vapor that it is not smoke and gave a quick explanation of the vapor. No one had any problem with us using them at the table and it turns out that one of the women in the bridal party used an ecig as well so we all compared notes.

While I understand being uncomfortable using them in public for fear of the reaction you will get, that is never going to change if we hide it from the public. There is no need to get in a confrontation over it or be offensive with your vaping, but I for one am not going to go stand with the smokers unless someone with the authority to do so tells me I have to.

 

[jpracing]

Nothing in this world ever changes without confrontation.
Either in discussion or, worse, arms.
However, nothing will ever change if one party runs and hides.

I disagree, but time will tell. Vapers are still pretty much under the radar, but the numbers are growing and the bans are growing with them. Let's watch and see what happens as it becomes more mainstream and number of confrontations increases. Things are going to get lively.

 

[Maestro]

True, but the change may not be the one you wanted. In most places, it's still NOT banned.

 

[tinajfreeman]

True, but the change may not be the one you wanted. In most places, it's still NOT banned.

What difference does it make to you if it is banned or not if you don't vape there? The reason we DON'T want a vaping ban is so we CAN vape in public. But if we are going to ban ourselves from vaping in public, what difference does it make?

 

[Pelagic]

I really agree with Mickeyrat's basic sentiment here. I was shocked when I read this thread and some of the posts people had made about how they would have handled a similar situation. However, I think some of Mickeyrat's post was a little jumping to conclusions or misdirected about the OP's situation. Perhaps it could have been because of all the responses where people said things like "I would've punched him" or "I would have told him to shut up" or "I would have pulled out my gun". And Mickeyrat may have gotten a little to into listing what not to do in a way that implied that the OP had actually done all those things (which they hadn't). But IMO they are all things that aren't good to do when someone has a problem with a person vaping in public. I really think it is important to explain what a vaporizer does when someone has an issue with it. Just because the guy in the coffee shop had heard of "e-cigarettes" does not mean he understood how they worked and that it is just water vapor (with a little PG or VG) being exhaled. I think it's really important to stay calm and polite - 2 wrongs don't make a right and definitely don't get anyone on our side, and even jerks can sometimes be forced to submit to logic when confronted with information and kindness when they were looking for/expecting either a fight or quivering submission.


ETA: If I fully informed someone of how vaping is different from smoking and not affecting them and they still wanted me to stop I would ask them why. If they still wanted me to stop I would. This is assuming that I am in an indoor public place and am the only one vaping or an outdoor place where smoking is strictly banned and/or others are stuck in close quarters with me out of necessity. In other situations I think I would play it by ear. But in general, if someone is bothered by something I am doing, whether or not it is forbidden, I will usually stop. Just being considerate. If I was, say, listening to music and my neighbour asked me to shut it off but I knew it wasn't above the maximum decibel level, I would shut it off. If I was standing too close to someone and they said they were allergic to my perfume I would move away, even though I was not doing anything that is banned or illegal. If someone didn't like my t-shirt and didn't want to look at it, well, that really depends on the t-shirt and where it was, but I would probably begrudgingly put on a sweater. When it comes to vaping it is a much more sensitive issue which can affect us all as vapers. Just because something is not banned or illegal doesn't mean we don't have to care about how anyone else feels about our behaviour. We can and should ask them why they feel that way and explain ourselves, but it's not ridiculous for some of us to think it's in the vaping community's best interest to put our PVs away if asked.

 

[Bullwinkle]

I would say csb, but since I see you are in Seattle OP, and I lived at Alki for quite a while, I can see this happening.

Not that where I live now doesn't have its own brand of busybodies!

I probably would have run him off before I let him sit at my table though.

Folks like that don't understand education; you have to bare your teeth and urinate on their leg to establish dominance.

 

[jpracing]

If someone thinks they can sit at another persons table
whom they don't know, clench their fists, and stare at the
person menacingly to get their way, then that someone is
highly unlikely to be wanting a logical discussion about
feelings and why everyone should respect each other.

 

[9ball_AJ]

I would say csb, but since I see you are in Seattle OP, and I lived at Alki for quite a while, I can see this happening.

Just to be clear, I do live in Seattle, where there IS a vaping ban, but this event did not happen in King County. It happened in Spokane where there IS NOT a vaping ban...

Carry on...

 

[Bullwinkle]

Bummer about the vape ban in King. They do like to ban things there.....it's for the children though.

 

[kfig]

Working in healthcare and seeing what kind of strange and sick people are just admitted to my hospital and then sent back into society I often wonder how often we come across these people in real life. Like this lady just started berating her nurse for not being able to get an early sheduled dosage of her narcotic. She even tried to leave the building on her motor scooter. I don't know how far she thought shed get but......just saying this person at the coffee shop is probably one of those many weirdos that just live among us. He probably would have picked a fight with someone else over something else if you hadn't been there.

 

[DedTV]

Naturally, Rat, I must respectfully disagree. That guy didn't sound like he was open to being educated.

Sounds that way to me as well.
If someone asks "What's that?" when I vape, it's an opportunity to educate them as to what they are.
If someone starts insulting and cursing at me, it's an opportunity to call the police to explain to them what disorderly conduct is.

But never resort to violence if you can possibly avoid it. Getting yourself an assault charge is not a good way to handle an idiot.

 

[NaturesEncore]

Oh good Lord! About four pages into reading this thread, I just had to LOL!

I totally agree that we, as vapers, should educate those who are WILLING to learn. This guy was clearly looking for a fight, though, which probably had nothing to do with the OP's vaping. This guy just used that as an excuse to go off on someone for whatever completely unrelated incident that originally made him upset. Like when you stub your toe on something, then cuss your dog out for looking at you funny, as you hop around holding your foot.

The thing that I find most amusing is the summarization of the situation, in general:

Some hot head in coffee shop, surrounded by steaming-hot brew, decides to blow off some steam by getting in a heated discussion with someone who's blowing out steam.